Threaded Mode | Linear Mode

Turkey · (This post was last modified: 2012-02-23 21:33 by Turkey.)

So what should determine your car insurance rates?

In England it's okay to discriminate against age, but recently the European court of justice ruled against separate insurance premiums for men and women. So currently discriminating against sex is unacceptable, but discriminating against age is ay okay

.. Confused? I am.

So should car insurance companies be able to discriminate against age, sex, etc (the things we don't choose) to determine our insurance rates? What about race? for example, if there were statistics to show Japanese drivers are safer, is it then acceptable to vary premiums based on race? Yes, it would probably cause an uproar, but is discriminating against age or sex any more ethical?

Maybe everyone's quotes should be the same? or should they be determined entirely by what we have control over? For example, choice of car, modifying your car, points on your licence, your crash rates etc.

Post your thoughts!

Malibu · 2012-02-21, 16:41

To me it's really no difference in kind of discrimination, but I'm probably biased because of my age. Discrimination upon age happens everywhere, not only on insurance, and I highly doubt it will ever change.

Josh · 2012-02-21, 17:10

The fact I don't have a penis.... seems to knock it down a bit.

**SO•Audiojack** · 2012-02-21, 17:14

Here car insurance is determined by place of residence (municipality), car make, model and year of introduction and to some extent, the age of the owner (Only costs more if you're under 22 or something like that).

"Discriminating" against age is perfectly normal IMO, young people who just had their license really don't have and in fact CAN'T have as much experience on the road as older drivers.. Rolleyes

.

Malibu · (This post was last modified: 2012-02-21 17:18 by Malibu.)

(2012-02-21 17:14)Audiojack Wrote: Here car insurance is determined by place of residence (municipality), car make, model and year of introduction and to some extent, the age of the owner (Only costs more if you're under 22 or something like that).

"Discriminating" against age is perfectly normal IMO, young people who just had their license really don't have and in fact CAN'T have as much experience on the road as older drivers.. .

But just because the majority seems to cause more accidents doesn't mean that those, who actually can drive as good as the average 30-40 year old drive or even better, have to be stereotyped.

ZsoLT · (This post was last modified: 2012-02-21 17:26 by ZsoLT.)

I think old senile drivers a much more dangerous than young ppls who maybe don't have a lot of experience, but have good reflexes and clear thinking.

(No, I don't say all old drivers are senile stupid ppls, but most of it isn't suitable to drive a car. Every day I see a lot of old drivers who don't know where they are...)

And old driver doesn't mean experience. People with new license pay less for the insurance than a 20 year old driver who have 3 year driving experience.

And I think it's discriminating to say all young people are reckless driver...

Ganjaman · 2012-02-21, 17:30

here in the netherlands it's based a bit on age and more on years of accidentfree driving. which i think is a good thing actually, seeing that an "older" person who just got his license has virtual no experience in a car but does has the common sense which a "younger" person doesn't have according to the insurance companys.

Malibu · 2012-02-21, 17:35

(2012-02-21 17:30)Ganjaman Wrote: here in the netherlands it's based a bit on age and more on years of accidentfree driving. which i think is a good thing actually, seeing that an "older" person who just got his license has virtual no experience in a car but does has the common sense which a "younger" person doesn't have according to the insurance companys.

Yeah I like the fact that they take the amount of accident free years into account. But to be honest, it would be more fair if they looked at the amount of years the person has a drivers license in possession instead of his or her age.

**SO•Audiojack** · 2012-02-21, 17:36

Yeah, the driving experience in my opinion is what counts. But this varies between countries and their driving culture..

But I think that our insurances are not that bad here in Finland, and the system works pretty well.

ZsoLT · 2012-02-21, 17:46

(2012-02-21 17:30)Ganjaman Wrote: here in the netherlands it's based a bit on age and more on years of accidentfree driving. which i think is a good thing actually, seeing that an "older" person who just got his license has virtual no experience in a car but does has the common sense which a "younger" person doesn't have according to the insurance companys.

In Hungary they see your car, sex, date when U got license, location, when U bought the car, and a lot of thing what I dunno. Maybe they ask when U go to the WC...
And there is Bonus-Malus system. U start with A0, and 1 year without crash (of Your fault) U r B1. If U crash in the 1st year U will be M1. M10 is the lovest, B10 is max.

That's looks fair, but if You are 22 year or younger, the prices are unreasonably high.

**[RDSR] Roba** · 2012-02-21, 17:47

I agree with Audiojack about Finland's insurance systems, they are pretty good, but all the taxes are bad.

**◄Chuck►** · 2012-02-21, 17:50

I think parking spots for disabled persons and mothers with children are discriminating as well.

Stevo · 2012-02-21, 17:52

Only thing I can say is sexism. But there are reasons and statistics which reason cost for insuring cars in certain areas and certain ages.

Malibu · (This post was last modified: 2012-02-21 18:32 by Malibu.)

(2012-02-21 17:50)Chuck Wrote: I think parking spots for disabled persons and mothers with children are discriminating as well.

Not sure if you're cynical or not, but I agree.

(2012-02-21 17:52)Stevo Wrote: Only thing I can say is sexism. But there are reasons and statistics which reason cost for insuring cars in certain areas and certain ages.

That's the whole point, it's discriminating Tongue

**[TC] Brad** · 2012-02-21, 19:35

I think that the current system (at least in the UK) is okay for people who have recently got a driving licence, however after the first year it does seem to be a little unfair.
For example, using statistics based on driver gender and age, car, location etc. are all an insurance company can base their premiums on when dealing with a new driver. However I think no claims bonuses should be larger than they currently are and should be based on the individual driver in question.

However, how would an insurance company compile data about how each of us drive? Black boxes - like those currently being trialed by some UK companies.

Personally, I'm prepared to pay a little extra than to have a black box fitted to my car.

Vee · 2012-02-21, 19:46

Only been driving 3 years, but so far have paid £6400 in total for the pleasure of being insured for that time Smile

The only reason they "discriminate" against younger drivers is because statistically they're more likely to crash, through either recklessness or simply inexperience. That's how it will always be, because it would be nigh on impossible to give individual quotes to individual people, unless like Brad mentions they use the boxes that monitor your driving, be it your speed, or time of day when you're actually driving.. This is why the typical first cars such as Corsas and Saxo's are actually quite dear to insure in comparison, as more of them get crashed by younger drivers.

My insurance now is actually cheap enough compared to everyone else's for me to not really care though Smile

Turkey · 2012-02-21, 19:56

There's no debate that the average female is safer than the average male, and that the average 40 year old is safer than the average 17 year old. So it is more logical to quote a 17 year old guy much more than a 30 year old woman.

However, the problem with varying premiums based on things people can't choose (sex and age etc) is it involves generalizing and discriminating. Insurance companies are assuming every young, male driver is a bit of an overconfident, chavy tit with little thought about how much damage their 1 ton vehicle can cause if it collides with another car, pedestrian or cyclist. So the result is there are some very safe young drivers, who want to use their car responsibly, but they're having to dish out ridiculous amounts of money because they're in the same unfortunate category as the chavy boy racers. Perhaps insurance should start off low for young drivers, but go up much more dramatically if they cause an accident or get points?

The other question is why can insurance companies discriminate against age, but not sex? Why the double standard? It may be the case that sexism offends people more than ageism, but surely that's a bit irrational, at least when it comes to insurance premiums?

Vee · (This post was last modified: 2012-02-21 20:04 by Vee.)

In an ideal world that's how it should be, but they can only go by statistics, not by how every individual drives their vehicle. In theory, it does work like you say, it starts off similar for everyone, you build up your NCB and it goes down considerably, you crash or get points, it goes up considerably Smile

Just ask Special.

Turkey · (This post was last modified: 2012-02-21 20:49 by Turkey.)

I hate to think how much his insurance is.

What if every young driver were to pay a similar amount to begin with, but a certain percentage of the cost is refunded if you don't cause an accident? This might be more of an incentive to drive sensibly as well as improving the discrimination issue.

I know the no claims bonus is a bit of an incentive, but not a lot tbh.

**[TC] Special** · 2012-02-21, 20:32

dont know why mine is so much, and probably gonna be reaching unaffordable levels next year,

im an angel driver Smile

Possibly Related Threads...
Thread:		Author	Replies:	Views:	Last Post
	Test Drive Insurance?	Ash	4	4,529	2012-03-26 00:19 Last Post: Nitros
	Help reduce UK insurance prices	RS1T	7	6,051	2012-01-12 21:19 Last Post: Brad